Proposed Amendment of the Commission's Policies and Rules for Processing Applications in the Digital Broadcast Satellite Service, 2126-2131 [2019-01314]
Download as PDF
2126
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Second NPRM is available at https://
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-18-157A1.pdf. The full text of this
document is also available for
inspection and copying during business
hours in the FCC Reference Information
Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th
Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities, send an
email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary. Phone:
(202) 523–5725. Email: secretary@
fmc.gov.
Rachel Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–01177 Filed 2–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6731–AA–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
Comment Filing Requirements
[IB Docket No. 06–160; FCC 18–157]
Proposed Amendment of the
Commission’s Policies and Rules for
Processing Applications in the Digital
Broadcast Satellite Service
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) proposes to amend
its rules to establish a licensing and
regulatory framework for space stations
in the Digital Broadcast Satellite Service
in the 12.2–12.7 GHz and 17.3–17.8 GHz
frequency bands that would harmonize
the rules regulating DBS with those
regulating geostationary-satellite orbit
Fixed-Satellite Service systems.
DATES: Comments are due March 25,
2019. Reply comments are due April 22,
2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by IB Docket No. 06–160, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s website: https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean O’More, International Bureau,
Satelite Division, 202–418–2453,
sean.omore@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second
NPRM), FCC 18–157, adopted
November 9, 2018, and released
November 13, 2018. The full text of the
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Feb 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
Interested parties may file comments
and reply comments on or before the
dates indicated in the DATES section
above. Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS).
• Electronic Filers. Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS, https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs.
• Paper Filers. Parties who file by
paper must include an original and four
copies of each filing.
Filings may be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
Æ All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW, Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
Æ Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
• Persons with Disabilities. To request
materials in accessible formats for
persons with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format), or
to request reasonable accommodations
for filing comments (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.), send an email to fcc504@
fcc.gov or call 202–418–0530 (voice) or
202–418–0432 (TTY).
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Ex Parte Presentations
We will treat this proceeding as a
‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document contains proposed
new and modified information
collection requirements. The
Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens,
invites the general public and the Office
of Management and Budget to comment
on the information collection
requirements contained in this
document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek
specific comment on how we might
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Synopsis
In this Second Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Second NPRM), the
Commission seeks comment on whether
to establish a licensing and regulatory
framework for DBS satellite systems that
would be analogous to that which
currently exists for geostationary (GSO)
Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) systems.
First, the Commission seeks comment
on processing requests for new DBS
service on a ‘‘first-come, first-served’’
basis—including an optional, two-step
application process—that governs GSO
FSS licensing. Second, the Commission
seeks comment on applying the
milestone and bond requirements for
the geostationary Fixed-Satellite Service
to DBS. Third, the Commission seeks
comment on extending the license terms
of non-broadcast DBS space stations
from 10 to 15 years. Fourth, the
Commission seeks comment on lifting
the ‘‘freeze’’ on new DBS applications
that has been in place since 2006, when
the Commission last proposed changes
to the DBS licensing regime in a 2006
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2006
Notice). Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on clarifying that requests for
new DBS at orbital locations less than
nine degrees apart, but that any new
DBS systems at such reduced-spacing
orbital locations must not increase
interference to DBS systems at the
internationally-planned nine-degree
orbital locations.
Proposal
While the Commission currently has
no DBS license applications before it,
clarification of the rules and
harmonization of those rules with the
recently-updated rules governing the
licensing of GSO FSS will facilitate the
licensing of new DBS systems and may
encourage interest in new DBS systems.
License Application Processing
Procedures. The Commission seeks
comment on proposed rules for
processing requests to provide new DBS
service to U.S. consumers. These rules
would apply to any future request to
provide DBS service to the United States
using the 12.2–12.7 GHz band (space-toEarth) and associated feeder links in the
17.3–17.8 GHz band (Earth-to-space),
including channels not currently
licensed at orbit locations assigned to
the United States under the
International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) Region 2 BSS and feeder-link
Plans (Region 2 Plan), as well as DBS
service from space stations located at
orbital locations not assigned to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Feb 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
United States in the ITU Region 2 BSS
and feeder-link Plans.
Consistent with the Commission’s
prior proposal in the 2006 Notice, the
Commission proposes to treat requests
to provide DBS using a ‘‘first-come,
first-served’’ licensing approach used
for GSO-like FSS and to eliminate DBS
competitive bidding procedures. The
2006 Notice specifically sought
comment on whether, pursuant to
section 309(j) of the Communications
Act, and in light of the Northpoint case,
the Commission could design a
competitive bidding system, or auction,
to assign mutually exclusive
applications for DBS licenses or
spectrum. Commenters overwhelmingly
supported use of ‘‘first-come, firstserved,’’ procedures for DBS and no
commenter suggested how the
Commission could design a competitive
bidding system under section 309(j).
Accordingly, based on the court holding
in Northpoint and the record in
response to the 2006 Notice, the
Commission concludes that DBS
licenses cannot be auctioned at this
time.
The Commission seeks further
comment on this proposal. DBS is
similar to GSO FSS, except for certain
technical features required to protect
DBS consumers from interference while
using small receive-only antennas, and
therefore DBS seems well suited to
using the same processing procedure as
used for GSO FSS. Comments received
in response to the 2006 Notice
overwhelmingly supported use of ‘‘firstcome, first-served’’ procedures for DBS.
The 2006 Notice observed that the
Commission’s experience with the
‘‘first-come, first-served’’ approach
indicates that this procedure would also
allow the quick issuance of DBS
licenses and grants of U.S. market
access, while still accommodating
existing or new competitive systems in
the same spectrum, and that this
procedure would give applicants
flexibility to design systems that will
best serve their targeted customers. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
experience since the 2006 Notice
reinforces or changes these assessments
of the suitability of the proposed ‘‘firstcome, first-served’’ procedure for
processing requests to provide DBS
services.
Application Processing Framework. If
the Commission adopts the proposal to
process requests to provide new DBS
service according to a ‘‘first-come, firstserved,’’ the Commission proposes to
apply the streamlined procedures the
Commission recently adopted for FSS
space stations in the part 25
Streamlining Order.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2127
The Commission proposes that
applications for authority to construct,
deploy and operate a space station to
provide DBS service, or requests for U.S.
market access to provide DBS service to
earth stations in the United States using
a non-U.S. licensed space station under
section 25.137 of the Commission’s
rules, must provide the technical
information required by section 25.114
of the Commission’s rules. Of particular
applicability to DBS service, the
following technical information must be
provided under section 25.114: (1)
Whether the space station is to be
operated on a broadcast or nonbroadcast basis; and (2) information and
analyses in the event that the technical
characteristics of the proposed system
differ from those in the Appendix 30
BSS Plans, the Appendix 30A feeder
link Plans, Annex 5 to Appendix 30 or
Annex 3 to Appendix 30A of the ITU
Radio Regulations.
The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal and whether section
25.114 should be amended to eliminate
any of these DBS-specific requirements
or to require any additional information
relevant to the provision of DBS service.
The Commission also proposes to apply
the existing provisions of section 25.112
to determine whether a request to
provide DBS service in the United
States is acceptable for filing and seek
comment on this proposal.
Milestone and Bond. The Commission
proposes to apply sections 25.164
(Milestones) and 25.165 (Surety Bonds)
to authorizations and grants of U.S.
market access to provide DBS service.
The Commission’s milestone and bond
requirements are intended to deter
warehousing by satellite operators
before a proposed space station has been
launched and begun operations. In this
instance, warehousing refers to the
retention of preemptive rights to use
spectrum and orbital resources by an
entity that does not intend to bear the
cost and risk of constructing, launching,
and operating an authorized space
station, is not fully committed to doing
so, or finds out after accepting the
license that it is unable to fulfill the
associated obligations. Such milestone
requirements extend not only to U.S.
licensees, but also to operators of nonU.S. licensed space stations that have
been granted access to the U.S. market.
In 2015, the Commission substantially
streamlined the milestone and bond
provisions contained in sections 25.164
and 25.165 of the Commission rules.
Specifically, the Commission eliminated
all of the space station construction
milestones, except the requirements to
bring a space station into operation at
the assigned location within a specified
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
2128
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
period of time. Also, in order to provide
better incentives against spectrum
warehousing, the Commission modified
the space station bond requirement to
increase liability over time.
The Commission proposes to extend
these streamlined milestone and bond
provisions to DBS services. Currently,
the milestone and bond provisions of
sections 25.164 and 25.165 explicitly do
not apply to DBS service. Instead, DBS
authorizations are subject to analogous,
but different, due diligence
requirements contained in section
25.148(b) of the Commission’s rules.
Because we are proposing to treat
requests for DBS service in substantially
the same manner as the Commission
treats requests for GSO FSS, the
Commission proposes to eliminate the
due diligence requirements contained in
section 25.148(b) and replace them with
a requirement to comply with the
milestone and bond provisions of
section 25.164 and 25.165. The
Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
License Term. The Commission
proposes to extend the license term for
DBS space stations not licensed as
broadcast facilities to 15 years from the
current term of 10 years. Currently,
licenses for DBS space stations licensed
as broadcast facilities are issued for a
period of 8 years, and licenses for DBS
space stations not licensed as broadcast
facilities are issued for 10 years. The 8year term for broadcast stations is
established by the Communications Act.
In 1995, the Commission extended the
term of non-broadcast DBS licenses
from 5 to 10 years, the maximum term
then allowed by the Communications
Act, and ‘‘which better reflect[ed] the
useful life of a DBS satellite.’’ Because
all DBS licensees offer subscription
services, all existing DBS operators are
classified as non-broadcast licensees
and their license terms were extended to
10 years. Subsequently, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996
granted the Commission authority to
establish license terms longer than 10
years for non-broadcast stations.
The Commission believes that issuing
non-broadcast DBS space station
licenses for 15 years would better reflect
the useful life of new DBS satellites, as
our extension of the license term for
such DBS space stations from 5 to 10
years did in 1995. There are no
technical or engineering considerations
that render the operating life of a DBS
satellite shorter than the operating life
of a non-DBS satellite, such as those
used to provide GSO FSS, and DBS
satellites generally are able to provide
service beyond their initial 10-year
license terms. It would also make DBS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Feb 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
space station license terms consistent
with the terms of most other space
stations. The Commission requests
comment on our proposal as well as any
alternative license term proposals.
Optional Two-Step FCC/ITU License
Application Process. The Commission
adopted an optional two-step
application process for GSO FSS
applicants in 2015. Under that two-step
application process, an applicant for a
GSO FSS license using frequencies in
‘‘unplanned’’ bands must submit a draft
Coordination Request filing to the
Commission using a simplified
application form—Form 312 (Main
Form)—pay the full license application
fee and post a $500,000 bond in order
to establish and perfect a queue
position. This first-step application
submission establishes a place in the
space station application processing
queue as of the time of filing of the
simplified Form 312 with the
Commission. As a second step, the
prospective licensee must file a
complete license application within two
years of submission of the Coordination
Request materials or forfeit the value of
the bond and lose the queue status
gained by the prior Coordination
Request filing. This two-step application
process is completely optional, and, as
an alternative, applicants may file a full
application without first submitting a
draft Coordination Request or posting
the corresponding $500,000 bond. The
Commission adopted a similar two-step
application process for GSO FSS
operation in ‘‘planned’’ frequency bands
subject to Appendix 30B of the ITU
Radio Regulations. In contrast, the
Commission stated that it would treat
proponents of satellite operations that
are subject to Appendices 30 and 30A
of the ITU Radio Regulations somewhat
differently. For these proponents, which
include those proposing operations in
the 12.2–12.7 GHz and 17.3–17.8 GHz
frequency bands used for DBS service,
the Commission would still review and
forward their ITU filings in advance of
a license application, but such review
and forwarding would not afford any
licensing status, as applications for DBS
systems are not eligible for first-come,
first-served processing.
Our proposal to adopt first-come,
first-served processing procedures for
DBS applications changes this situation
and ITU filings subject to Appendices
30 and 30A of the ITU Radio
Regulations will not be forwarded to the
ITU before a license application is filed
with the Commission. However,
adopting first-come, first-served
processing also supports extending the
optional two-step application process to
these DBS filings. Thus, the
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Commission proposes to extend the
two-step process for GSO FSS
operations in unplanned bands to DBS
operations in planned bands, and, in
this respect, will treat ITU filings to
modify an existing frequency
assignment in the Region 2 Plan, to
include a new frequency assignment in
the Region 2 Plan, or to include a new
or modified frequency assignment in the
List of the Regions 1 and 3 Plan in the
same manner as a Coordination Request
filing for GSO FSS operation in nonplanned bands.
Unlike Coordination Requests in nonplanned bands, however, the
Commission proposes to review a
proposed filing under Appendices 30
and 30A prior to forwarding the filing
to the ITU to ensure that it is compatible
with other U.S. filings. This review is
necessary to protect the rights of
existing U.S. filings from being unduly
eroded under the relevant ITU
protection criteria by another U.S. filing.
Accordingly, the party requesting a
planned-band filing must either submit
the results of an analysis demonstrating
that the proposed operation will not
‘‘affect’’ any other U.S. filing under the
relevant ITU criteria or, if another filing
would be deemed affected, submit a
letter signed by the affected operator
(which may be the same as the operator
requesting the new filing) that it
consents to the new filing. This
proposed review is consistent with our
tentative conclusions above regarding
the processing of all requests for DBS
service. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. The
Commission likewise proposes to
require applicants for DBS licenses
using the two-step procedure to submit
the application filing fee and a bond of
$500,000 with their applications and
ITU filings. As noted above, in the FSS
licensing framework, an applicant
submission with the Commission under
the first step of the optional two-step
procedure must be accompanied by the
application fee and a $500,000 bond.
The purpose of the application-stage
bond is to deter speculation during the
two-year period of queue priority before
the applicant must submit a completed
application. The Commission finds that
these considerations also apply to DBS
licensees. The Commission seek
comment on this proposal.
Non-U.S. Licensed Systems. With the
exception of the two-step processing
procedure discussed above, the
Commission proposes that procedures
and requirements proposed for DBS
service license applications also apply
to requests to access the United States
market by non-U.S. licensed space
stations under our DISCO II framework.
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
The Commission notes that the
Commission decided in the DISCO II
proceeding that entities wishing to serve
the United States with a non-U.S.
satellite, including DBS satellites, must
file the same information as applicants
for a U.S. space station license, whether
or not that satellite is already licensed
by another administration.
Consequently, if the Commission adopts
a first-come, first-served licensing
procedure for applicants for a U.S.licensed DBS space station, operators of
non-U.S. licensed DBS space station
seeking U.S. market access and entities
filing earth station applications to
access non-U.S. licensed DBS space
stations must file the same information
required under section 25.114 of the
Commission’s rules.
The Commission further notes that
the United States took an exemption
from the World Trade Organization’s
Basic Telecommunication Agreement
for ‘‘one-way satellite transmission of
DTH and DBS television services and
digital audio services.’’ Thus, in order to
serve the United States, foreign-licensed
DBS systems must be found acceptable
under the Effective Competitive
Opportunities analysis the Commission
adopted in our DISCO II proceeding in
1997 (ECO-Sat). The Commission does
not intend to revisit any of these
considerations, but merely propose that
foreign DBS systems requesting market
access to serve the United States will be
considered on the same first-come, firstserved basis as applications for
authority to provide DBS services.
Reduced Spacing for DBS Space
Stations. The Commission tentatively
concludes that the public interest would
be served by granting requests for new
DBS service via space stations at orbital
locations less than nine degrees apart,
but that the public interest would not be
served by adopting specific rules,
different from those contained in
Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU
Radio Regulations, for accommodating
requests for new DBS systems at
reduced-spacing orbital locations.
Instead, such requests can be processed
using the ‘‘first-come, first-served’’
procedures for DBS service proposed
above.
After review of the comments and
pleadings filed in response to the 2006
Notice, the Commission tentatively
concludes that the potential benefits of
adopting additional rules requiring
existing DBS service providers to
accommodate operations at reduced
orbital spacing are outweighed by the
potential harms to existing subscribers
to DBS service. As an initial matter, it
is not clear that access to additional
DBS orbital locations is needed to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Feb 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
introduce new video programming
services since DBS subscribership is
dropping in the United States as the
marketplace for the distribution of video
programming over the internet
continues to grow and other
opportunities exist to provide new
video programming services in the
United States in several frequency
bands already allocated for satellite
services. These include the 17/24 GHz
BSS ‘‘reverse’’ band, which is
specifically allocated for the provision
of video programming, as well as
frequency bands allocated for Ka-band
GSO FSS. Furthermore, the proposals
made by proponents for additional rules
may require changes to the equipment
currently used to provide DBS services
to subscribers—such as requiring larger
customer receive antennas and changes
to space station designs—or would
require existing DBS providers and their
subscribers to accept more interference
and service unavailability than is the
case today.
However, the record does show that it
is possible to accommodate the
provision of new DBS services at
reduced orbital spacings under existing
rules. Specifically, our rules already
allow us to consider requests for new
DBS service at reduced orbital spacings
if entities making such a request can
coordinate their proposed operations
with other U.S. DBS operators and
secure agreements with other operators
already having assignments in the ITU
Region 2 Plans (or with prior requests
for Plan modifications). The
Commission proposes to address such
requests under these existing rules
rather than adopt new rules.
This approach protects current DBS
consumers from interference and
degradation of their video reception,
while at the same time allowing
potential new DBS operators to
demonstrate—through careful system
design, advancing technology, and
coordination with existing DBS
systems—that new DBS systems can
operate at orbital spacings of less than
nine degrees without causing harmful
interference to existing systems and
their customers. It will also ensure that
operations at reduced orbital
separations will lead to the same levels
of interference observed between two
DBS systems operating nine degrees
apart, with co-frequency, co-coverage
operation, and nominal Appendix 30
power density levels. The Commission
recognizes that this proposal will
require mitigation measures by future
operators at reduced orbital spacings,
such as reduced power density levels or
non-fully overlapping coverages. The
Commission tentatively concludes that
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2129
such measures are more easily and
appropriately implemented by future
entrants than retroactively imposed on
existing DBS operators and their
subscribers.
The Commission notes that the ITU
Appendix 30 and 30A ITU rules do not
govern the relationship between two
DBS systems operating under U.S. ITU
filings. The Commission proposes that
the same ITU criteria be used to
determine compatibility between a new
DBS application with respect to a DBS
system already in the processing queue
or previously authorized, even when
both systems are or will be operating
under U.S. ITU filings. If any of the
frequency assignments of the system
already in the queue or previously
authorized is affected, according to the
ITU criteria, the new DBS application
can still be considered compatible with
this system by submission of a letter
signed by the affected operator
indicating that it consents to the new
application.
The Commission seeks comment on
this approach. In particular, the
Commission seeks any updates to the
record regarding specific benefits or
harms arising from adopting rules to
require existing DBS service providers
to accommodate requests to provide
DBS service at reduced orbital spacings
and may consider adopting such rules if
the record demonstrates that doing so
would serve the public interest.
DBS Licensing ‘‘Freeze’’. The
Commission imposed a ‘‘freeze’’ on
requests for new DBS systems in 2005.
The proposals the Commission makes in
this Second Notice will, if adopted,
resolve the issues that caused the
Commission to impose that freeze. The
Commission therefore proposes to lift
the freeze and begin accepting new
applications for DBS licenses after the
effective date of rules adopted as a
result of this Second Notice. The
Commission also proposes that new
applications or requests for U.S. market
access be accepted only after a date
specified in a public notice, which the
International Bureau would release after
the rules have become effective. The
Commission seeks comment on these
proposals.
Other Matters. The 2006 Notice also
sought comment on other issues related
to the regulation of DBS service that the
Commission do not repeat in this
Second Notice. These other issues relate
to protection requirements among
terrestrial Multichannel Video
Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS)
licensees and DBS operations at reduced
spacings, protection of DBS operations
at reduced spacings from interference
from NGSO FSS operations, protection
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
2130
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
of mobile DBS receivers smaller than 45
cm in diameter, and whether to
establish a spectrum cap on existing
DBS licensees. The Commission seeks
additional comment on these issues in
light of developments since the 2006
Notice and our tentative conclusions in
this Second Notice.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission
has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Second Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). We
request written public comments on this
IRFA. Commenters must identify their
comments as responses to the IRFA and
must file the comments by the deadlines
for comments on the NPRM provided
above in section IV.B. The Commission
will send a copy of the NPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. In addition,
summaries of the NPRM and IRFA will
be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
The NPRM seeks comment on several
proposals relating to the Commission’s
rules and policies for licensing space
stations in the Digital Broadcasting
Satellite (DBS) Service. Adoption of the
proposed changes would, among other
things, provide a licensing system under
which new licenses for DBS satellites in
reduced spacing orbital slots would be
processed according to the
Commission’s rules for geostationary
orbit space stations in the FixedSatellite Service.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized
under sections 4(i), 303, and 316 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 316.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules May Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide
a description of, and, where feasible, an
estimate of, the number of small entities
that may be affected by adoption of
proposed rules. The RFA generally
defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as
having the same meaning as the terms
‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’
and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’
In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’
has the same meaning as the term
‘‘small business concern’’ under the
Small Business Act. A small business
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Feb 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
concern is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). Below, we
describe and estimate the number of
small entity licensees that may be
affected by adoption of the proposed
rules.
Satellite Telecommunications and All
Other Telecommunications. The rules
proposed in this NPRM would affect
some providers of satellite
telecommunications services, if
adopted. Satellite telecommunications
service providers include satellite and
earth station operators. Since 2007, the
SBA has recognized two census
categories for satellite
telecommunications firms: ‘‘Satellite
Telecommunications’’ and ‘‘Other
Telecommunications.’’ Under both
categories, a business is considered
small if it had $32.5 million or less in
annual receipts.
The first category of Satellite
Telecommunications ‘‘comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
providing point-to-point
telecommunications services to other
establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting
industries by forwarding and receiving
communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.’’ For this category,
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that
there were a total of 512 satellite
communications firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 482 firms
had annual receipts of under $25
million.
The second category of Other
Telecommunications is comprised of
entities ‘‘primarily engaged in providing
specialized telecommunications
services, such as satellite tracking,
communications telemetry, and radar
station operation. This industry also
includes establishments primarily
engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities
connected with one or more terrestrial
systems and capable of transmitting
telecommunications to, and receiving
telecommunications from, satellite
systems. Establishments providing
internet services or voice over internet
protocol (VoIP) services via clientsupplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry.’’ For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2007 show that there
were a total of 2,383 firms that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 2,346
firms had annual receipts of under $25
million. We anticipate that some of
these ‘‘Other Telecommunications
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
firms,’’ which are small entities, are
earth station applicants/licensees that
might be affected if our proposed rule
changes are adopted.
We anticipate that our proposed rule
changes may have an impact on earth
station and space station applicants and
licensees. Space station applicants and
licensees, however, rarely qualify under
the definition of a small entity.
Generally, space stations cost hundreds
of millions of dollars to construct,
launch, and operate. Consequently, we
do not anticipate that any space station
operators are small entities that would
be affected by our proposed actions.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
The NPRM proposes and seeks
comment on several rule changes that
would affect compliance requirements
for earth station and space station
operators. Most proposed changes,
however, are directed at space station
applicants and licensees. As noted
above, these parties rarely qualify as
small entities.
For example, the Commission
proposes to allow additional uses of
certain frequencies within the 17.2–17.7
GHz band, subject to compliance with
technical limits designed to protect
other users of the bands. We also seek
comment on revised or new technical
standards to promote sharing among
DBS systems in reduced orbital
spacings.
We also propose modified rules for
satellite system implementation to
provide additional flexibility to
operators. In total, the proposals and
questions in the NPRM are designed to
achieve the Commission’s mandate to
regulate in the public interest while
imposing the lowest necessary burden
on all affected parties, including small
entities.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rules for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.’’
The NPRM seeks comment from all
interested parties. The Commission is
aware that some of the proposals under
consideration may impact small entities.
Small entities are encouraged to bring to
the Commission’s attention any specific
concerns they may have with the
proposals outlined in the NPRM.
The Commission expects to consider
the economic impact on small entities,
as identified in comments filed in
response to the NPRM, in reaching its
final conclusions and taking action in
this proceeding.
In this NPRM, the Commission invites
comment on means to minimize
negative economic impacts on
applicants and licensees, including
small entities, by permitting DBS space
stations in orbital locations between the
currently authorized orbital locations.
Overall, the proposals in the NPRM seek
to increase flexibility for DBS applicants
and licensees and reduce burdens,
while maintaining adequate protections
against interference.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25
Administrative practice and
procedure, Earth stations, Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
The Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 25, as follows:
PART 25—SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 25
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 25.114 Applications for space station
authorizations.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303,
307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 25.110 by revising
paragraph (b)(3) introductory text and
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) and adding
paragraph (b)(3)(iv) to read as follows:
■
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
§ 25.110 Filing of applications, fees, and
number of copies.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) A license application for 17/24
GHz BSS space station operation, for
GSO FSS space station operation, or for
GSO space station operation subject to
the provisions in Appendices 30 and
30A of the ITU Radio Regulations
(incorporated by reference, see § 25.108)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Feb 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
may be submitted in two steps, as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) An application for GSO space
station operation subject to the
provisions in Appendices 30 and 30A of
the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated
by reference, see § 25.108) may be
initiated by submitting to the
Commission, in accordance with the
applicable provisions of part 1, subpart
Y of this chapter, a draft ITU filing to:
Modify an existing frequency
assignment in the Region 2 Plan; to
include a new frequency assignment in
the Region 2 Plan; or to include a new
or modified frequency assignment in the
List of the Regions 1 and 3 Plan,
accompanied by a simplified Form 312
and a declaration of acceptance of ITU
cost-recovery responsibility in
accordance with § 25.111(d). The
simplified Form 312, Main Form
submission must include the
information required by items 1–17, 43,
45, and 46. In addition, the applicant
must submit the results of an analysis
demonstrating that no U.S. filing under
Appendix 30 and 30A would be deemed
affected by the proposed operation
under the relevant ITU criteria or, for
any affected filings, a letter signed by
the affected operator that it consents to
the new filing.
(iv) An application initiated pursuant
to paragraphs (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(ii) or
(b)(3)(iii) of this section will be
considered completed by the filing of an
FCC Form 312 and the remaining
information required in a complete
license application, including the
information required by § 25.114, within
two years of the date of submission of
the initial application materials.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 25.114 by revising
paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) For an application filed pursuant
to the two-step procedure in
§ 25.110(b)(3), the filing pursuant to
§ 25.110(b)(3)(iv) must be submitted on
FCC Form 312, Main Form and
Schedule S, with attached exhibits as
required by paragraph (d) of this
section, and must constitute a
comprehensive proposal.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 25.121 by revising
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 25.121
License term and renewals.
(a) * * * (1) Except for licenses for
SDARS space stations and terrestrial
repeaters and 17/24 GHz BSS space
stations licensed as broadcast facilities,
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
2131
licenses for facilities governed by this
part will be issued for a period of 15
years.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 25.140
[Amended]
5. Amend § 25.140 by revising the
section header and adding new
paragraph (a)(3)(vii) to read as follows:
■
§ 25.140 Further requirements for license
applications for GSO space station
operation in the FSS and the 17/24 GHz
BSS.
(a)(1) * * *
(vi) In addition to the information
required by § 25.114, an applicant for a
GSO space station operating in the
frequencies of the ITU Appendices 30
and 30A (incorporated by reference, see
§ 25.108) must provide a statement that
the proposed operation will take into
account the applicable requirements of
these Appendices of the ITU Radio
Regulations and a demonstration that it
is compatible with other U.S. ITU filings
under Appendices 30 and 30A or, for
any affected filings, a letter signed by
the affected operator indicating that it
consents to the new application.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Amend § 25.148 by removing and
reserving paragraphs (b), (d) and (e).
■ 7. Amend § 25.164 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 25.164
Milestones.
(a) The recipient of an initial license
for a GSO space station, other than a
SDARS space station, granted on or after
August 27, 2003, must launch the space
station, position it in its assigned orbital
location, and operate it in accordance
with the station authorization no later
than five years after the grant of the
license, unless a different schedule is
established by Title 47, Chapter I, or the
Commission.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Amend § 25.165 by revising
paragraph (a) introductory text to read
as follows:
§ 25.165
Surety bonds.
(a) For all space station licenses
issued after September 20, 2004, other
than licenses for SDARS space stations
and replacement space stations as
defined in paragraph (e) of this section,
the licensee must post a bond within 30
days of the grant of its license. Failure
to post a bond will render the license
null and void automatically.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–01314 Filed 2–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2126-2131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01314]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket No. 06-160; FCC 18-157]
Proposed Amendment of the Commission's Policies and Rules for
Processing Applications in the Digital Broadcast Satellite Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposes to amend
its rules to establish a licensing and regulatory framework for space
stations in the Digital Broadcast Satellite Service in the 12.2-12.7
GHz and 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency bands that would harmonize the rules
regulating DBS with those regulating geostationary-satellite orbit
Fixed-Satellite Service systems.
DATES: Comments are due March 25, 2019. Reply comments are due April
22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 06-160,
by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean O'More, International Bureau,
Satelite Division, 202-418-2453, sean.omore@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second NPRM), FCC 18-157, adopted
November 9, 2018, and released November 13, 2018. The full text of the
Second NPRM is available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-18-157A1.pdf. The full text of this document is also
available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities, send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
Comment Filing Requirements
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS, https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an
original and four copies of each filing.
Filings may be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes
must be disposed of before entering the building.
[cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Persons with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for persons with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), or to request reasonable
accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Ex Parte Presentations
We will treat this proceeding as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document contains proposed new and modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how
we might
[[Page 2127]]
further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Synopsis
In this Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second NPRM), the
Commission seeks comment on whether to establish a licensing and
regulatory framework for DBS satellite systems that would be analogous
to that which currently exists for geostationary (GSO) Fixed-Satellite
Service (FSS) systems. First, the Commission seeks comment on
processing requests for new DBS service on a ``first-come, first-
served'' basis--including an optional, two-step application process--
that governs GSO FSS licensing. Second, the Commission seeks comment on
applying the milestone and bond requirements for the geostationary
Fixed-Satellite Service to DBS. Third, the Commission seeks comment on
extending the license terms of non-broadcast DBS space stations from 10
to 15 years. Fourth, the Commission seeks comment on lifting the
``freeze'' on new DBS applications that has been in place since 2006,
when the Commission last proposed changes to the DBS licensing regime
in a 2006 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2006 Notice). Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on clarifying that requests for new DBS at
orbital locations less than nine degrees apart, but that any new DBS
systems at such reduced-spacing orbital locations must not increase
interference to DBS systems at the internationally-planned nine-degree
orbital locations.
Proposal
While the Commission currently has no DBS license applications
before it, clarification of the rules and harmonization of those rules
with the recently-updated rules governing the licensing of GSO FSS will
facilitate the licensing of new DBS systems and may encourage interest
in new DBS systems.
License Application Processing Procedures. The Commission seeks
comment on proposed rules for processing requests to provide new DBS
service to U.S. consumers. These rules would apply to any future
request to provide DBS service to the United States using the 12.2-12.7
GHz band (space-to-Earth) and associated feeder links in the 17.3-17.8
GHz band (Earth-to-space), including channels not currently licensed at
orbit locations assigned to the United States under the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) Region 2 BSS and feeder-link Plans
(Region 2 Plan), as well as DBS service from space stations located at
orbital locations not assigned to the United States in the ITU Region 2
BSS and feeder-link Plans.
Consistent with the Commission's prior proposal in the 2006 Notice,
the Commission proposes to treat requests to provide DBS using a
``first-come, first-served'' licensing approach used for GSO-like FSS
and to eliminate DBS competitive bidding procedures. The 2006 Notice
specifically sought comment on whether, pursuant to section 309(j) of
the Communications Act, and in light of the Northpoint case, the
Commission could design a competitive bidding system, or auction, to
assign mutually exclusive applications for DBS licenses or spectrum.
Commenters overwhelmingly supported use of ``first-come, first-
served,'' procedures for DBS and no commenter suggested how the
Commission could design a competitive bidding system under section
309(j). Accordingly, based on the court holding in Northpoint and the
record in response to the 2006 Notice, the Commission concludes that
DBS licenses cannot be auctioned at this time.
The Commission seeks further comment on this proposal. DBS is
similar to GSO FSS, except for certain technical features required to
protect DBS consumers from interference while using small receive-only
antennas, and therefore DBS seems well suited to using the same
processing procedure as used for GSO FSS. Comments received in response
to the 2006 Notice overwhelmingly supported use of ``first-come, first-
served'' procedures for DBS. The 2006 Notice observed that the
Commission's experience with the ``first-come, first-served'' approach
indicates that this procedure would also allow the quick issuance of
DBS licenses and grants of U.S. market access, while still
accommodating existing or new competitive systems in the same spectrum,
and that this procedure would give applicants flexibility to design
systems that will best serve their targeted customers. The Commission
seeks comment on whether experience since the 2006 Notice reinforces or
changes these assessments of the suitability of the proposed ``first-
come, first-served'' procedure for processing requests to provide DBS
services.
Application Processing Framework. If the Commission adopts the
proposal to process requests to provide new DBS service according to a
``first-come, first-served,'' the Commission proposes to apply the
streamlined procedures the Commission recently adopted for FSS space
stations in the part 25 Streamlining Order.
The Commission proposes that applications for authority to
construct, deploy and operate a space station to provide DBS service,
or requests for U.S. market access to provide DBS service to earth
stations in the United States using a non-U.S. licensed space station
under section 25.137 of the Commission's rules, must provide the
technical information required by section 25.114 of the Commission's
rules. Of particular applicability to DBS service, the following
technical information must be provided under section 25.114: (1)
Whether the space station is to be operated on a broadcast or non-
broadcast basis; and (2) information and analyses in the event that the
technical characteristics of the proposed system differ from those in
the Appendix 30 BSS Plans, the Appendix 30A feeder link Plans, Annex 5
to Appendix 30 or Annex 3 to Appendix 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and whether section
25.114 should be amended to eliminate any of these DBS-specific
requirements or to require any additional information relevant to the
provision of DBS service. The Commission also proposes to apply the
existing provisions of section 25.112 to determine whether a request to
provide DBS service in the United States is acceptable for filing and
seek comment on this proposal.
Milestone and Bond. The Commission proposes to apply sections
25.164 (Milestones) and 25.165 (Surety Bonds) to authorizations and
grants of U.S. market access to provide DBS service. The Commission's
milestone and bond requirements are intended to deter warehousing by
satellite operators before a proposed space station has been launched
and begun operations. In this instance, warehousing refers to the
retention of preemptive rights to use spectrum and orbital resources by
an entity that does not intend to bear the cost and risk of
constructing, launching, and operating an authorized space station, is
not fully committed to doing so, or finds out after accepting the
license that it is unable to fulfill the associated obligations. Such
milestone requirements extend not only to U.S. licensees, but also to
operators of non-U.S. licensed space stations that have been granted
access to the U.S. market.
In 2015, the Commission substantially streamlined the milestone and
bond provisions contained in sections 25.164 and 25.165 of the
Commission rules. Specifically, the Commission eliminated all of the
space station construction milestones, except the requirements to bring
a space station into operation at the assigned location within a
specified
[[Page 2128]]
period of time. Also, in order to provide better incentives against
spectrum warehousing, the Commission modified the space station bond
requirement to increase liability over time.
The Commission proposes to extend these streamlined milestone and
bond provisions to DBS services. Currently, the milestone and bond
provisions of sections 25.164 and 25.165 explicitly do not apply to DBS
service. Instead, DBS authorizations are subject to analogous, but
different, due diligence requirements contained in section 25.148(b) of
the Commission's rules. Because we are proposing to treat requests for
DBS service in substantially the same manner as the Commission treats
requests for GSO FSS, the Commission proposes to eliminate the due
diligence requirements contained in section 25.148(b) and replace them
with a requirement to comply with the milestone and bond provisions of
section 25.164 and 25.165. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
License Term. The Commission proposes to extend the license term
for DBS space stations not licensed as broadcast facilities to 15 years
from the current term of 10 years. Currently, licenses for DBS space
stations licensed as broadcast facilities are issued for a period of 8
years, and licenses for DBS space stations not licensed as broadcast
facilities are issued for 10 years. The 8-year term for broadcast
stations is established by the Communications Act. In 1995, the
Commission extended the term of non-broadcast DBS licenses from 5 to 10
years, the maximum term then allowed by the Communications Act, and
``which better reflect[ed] the useful life of a DBS satellite.''
Because all DBS licensees offer subscription services, all existing DBS
operators are classified as non-broadcast licensees and their license
terms were extended to 10 years. Subsequently, the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 granted the Commission authority to establish license terms
longer than 10 years for non-broadcast stations.
The Commission believes that issuing non-broadcast DBS space
station licenses for 15 years would better reflect the useful life of
new DBS satellites, as our extension of the license term for such DBS
space stations from 5 to 10 years did in 1995. There are no technical
or engineering considerations that render the operating life of a DBS
satellite shorter than the operating life of a non-DBS satellite, such
as those used to provide GSO FSS, and DBS satellites generally are able
to provide service beyond their initial 10-year license terms. It would
also make DBS space station license terms consistent with the terms of
most other space stations. The Commission requests comment on our
proposal as well as any alternative license term proposals.
Optional Two-Step FCC/ITU License Application Process. The
Commission adopted an optional two-step application process for GSO FSS
applicants in 2015. Under that two-step application process, an
applicant for a GSO FSS license using frequencies in ``unplanned''
bands must submit a draft Coordination Request filing to the Commission
using a simplified application form--Form 312 (Main Form)--pay the full
license application fee and post a $500,000 bond in order to establish
and perfect a queue position. This first-step application submission
establishes a place in the space station application processing queue
as of the time of filing of the simplified Form 312 with the
Commission. As a second step, the prospective licensee must file a
complete license application within two years of submission of the
Coordination Request materials or forfeit the value of the bond and
lose the queue status gained by the prior Coordination Request filing.
This two-step application process is completely optional, and, as an
alternative, applicants may file a full application without first
submitting a draft Coordination Request or posting the corresponding
$500,000 bond. The Commission adopted a similar two-step application
process for GSO FSS operation in ``planned'' frequency bands subject to
Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations. In contrast, the Commission
stated that it would treat proponents of satellite operations that are
subject to Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations somewhat
differently. For these proponents, which include those proposing
operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz and 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency bands used
for DBS service, the Commission would still review and forward their
ITU filings in advance of a license application, but such review and
forwarding would not afford any licensing status, as applications for
DBS systems are not eligible for first-come, first-served processing.
Our proposal to adopt first-come, first-served processing
procedures for DBS applications changes this situation and ITU filings
subject to Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations will not
be forwarded to the ITU before a license application is filed with the
Commission. However, adopting first-come, first-served processing also
supports extending the optional two-step application process to these
DBS filings. Thus, the Commission proposes to extend the two-step
process for GSO FSS operations in unplanned bands to DBS operations in
planned bands, and, in this respect, will treat ITU filings to modify
an existing frequency assignment in the Region 2 Plan, to include a new
frequency assignment in the Region 2 Plan, or to include a new or
modified frequency assignment in the List of the Regions 1 and 3 Plan
in the same manner as a Coordination Request filing for GSO FSS
operation in non-planned bands.
Unlike Coordination Requests in non-planned bands, however, the
Commission proposes to review a proposed filing under Appendices 30 and
30A prior to forwarding the filing to the ITU to ensure that it is
compatible with other U.S. filings. This review is necessary to protect
the rights of existing U.S. filings from being unduly eroded under the
relevant ITU protection criteria by another U.S. filing. Accordingly,
the party requesting a planned-band filing must either submit the
results of an analysis demonstrating that the proposed operation will
not ``affect'' any other U.S. filing under the relevant ITU criteria
or, if another filing would be deemed affected, submit a letter signed
by the affected operator (which may be the same as the operator
requesting the new filing) that it consents to the new filing. This
proposed review is consistent with our tentative conclusions above
regarding the processing of all requests for DBS service. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission likewise
proposes to require applicants for DBS licenses using the two-step
procedure to submit the application filing fee and a bond of $500,000
with their applications and ITU filings. As noted above, in the FSS
licensing framework, an applicant submission with the Commission under
the first step of the optional two-step procedure must be accompanied
by the application fee and a $500,000 bond. The purpose of the
application-stage bond is to deter speculation during the two-year
period of queue priority before the applicant must submit a completed
application. The Commission finds that these considerations also apply
to DBS licensees. The Commission seek comment on this proposal.
Non-U.S. Licensed Systems. With the exception of the two-step
processing procedure discussed above, the Commission proposes that
procedures and requirements proposed for DBS service license
applications also apply to requests to access the United States market
by non-U.S. licensed space stations under our DISCO II framework.
[[Page 2129]]
The Commission notes that the Commission decided in the DISCO II
proceeding that entities wishing to serve the United States with a non-
U.S. satellite, including DBS satellites, must file the same
information as applicants for a U.S. space station license, whether or
not that satellite is already licensed by another administration.
Consequently, if the Commission adopts a first-come, first-served
licensing procedure for applicants for a U.S.-licensed DBS space
station, operators of non-U.S. licensed DBS space station seeking U.S.
market access and entities filing earth station applications to access
non-U.S. licensed DBS space stations must file the same information
required under section 25.114 of the Commission's rules.
The Commission further notes that the United States took an
exemption from the World Trade Organization's Basic Telecommunication
Agreement for ``one-way satellite transmission of DTH and DBS
television services and digital audio services.'' Thus, in order to
serve the United States, foreign-licensed DBS systems must be found
acceptable under the Effective Competitive Opportunities analysis the
Commission adopted in our DISCO II proceeding in 1997 (ECO-Sat). The
Commission does not intend to revisit any of these considerations, but
merely propose that foreign DBS systems requesting market access to
serve the United States will be considered on the same first-come,
first-served basis as applications for authority to provide DBS
services.
Reduced Spacing for DBS Space Stations. The Commission tentatively
concludes that the public interest would be served by granting requests
for new DBS service via space stations at orbital locations less than
nine degrees apart, but that the public interest would not be served by
adopting specific rules, different from those contained in Appendices
30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations, for accommodating requests for
new DBS systems at reduced-spacing orbital locations. Instead, such
requests can be processed using the ``first-come, first-served''
procedures for DBS service proposed above.
After review of the comments and pleadings filed in response to the
2006 Notice, the Commission tentatively concludes that the potential
benefits of adopting additional rules requiring existing DBS service
providers to accommodate operations at reduced orbital spacing are
outweighed by the potential harms to existing subscribers to DBS
service. As an initial matter, it is not clear that access to
additional DBS orbital locations is needed to introduce new video
programming services since DBS subscribership is dropping in the United
States as the marketplace for the distribution of video programming
over the internet continues to grow and other opportunities exist to
provide new video programming services in the United States in several
frequency bands already allocated for satellite services. These include
the 17/24 GHz BSS ``reverse'' band, which is specifically allocated for
the provision of video programming, as well as frequency bands
allocated for Ka-band GSO FSS. Furthermore, the proposals made by
proponents for additional rules may require changes to the equipment
currently used to provide DBS services to subscribers--such as
requiring larger customer receive antennas and changes to space station
designs--or would require existing DBS providers and their subscribers
to accept more interference and service unavailability than is the case
today.
However, the record does show that it is possible to accommodate
the provision of new DBS services at reduced orbital spacings under
existing rules. Specifically, our rules already allow us to consider
requests for new DBS service at reduced orbital spacings if entities
making such a request can coordinate their proposed operations with
other U.S. DBS operators and secure agreements with other operators
already having assignments in the ITU Region 2 Plans (or with prior
requests for Plan modifications). The Commission proposes to address
such requests under these existing rules rather than adopt new rules.
This approach protects current DBS consumers from interference and
degradation of their video reception, while at the same time allowing
potential new DBS operators to demonstrate--through careful system
design, advancing technology, and coordination with existing DBS
systems--that new DBS systems can operate at orbital spacings of less
than nine degrees without causing harmful interference to existing
systems and their customers. It will also ensure that operations at
reduced orbital separations will lead to the same levels of
interference observed between two DBS systems operating nine degrees
apart, with co-frequency, co-coverage operation, and nominal Appendix
30 power density levels. The Commission recognizes that this proposal
will require mitigation measures by future operators at reduced orbital
spacings, such as reduced power density levels or non-fully overlapping
coverages. The Commission tentatively concludes that such measures are
more easily and appropriately implemented by future entrants than
retroactively imposed on existing DBS operators and their subscribers.
The Commission notes that the ITU Appendix 30 and 30A ITU rules do
not govern the relationship between two DBS systems operating under
U.S. ITU filings. The Commission proposes that the same ITU criteria be
used to determine compatibility between a new DBS application with
respect to a DBS system already in the processing queue or previously
authorized, even when both systems are or will be operating under U.S.
ITU filings. If any of the frequency assignments of the system already
in the queue or previously authorized is affected, according to the ITU
criteria, the new DBS application can still be considered compatible
with this system by submission of a letter signed by the affected
operator indicating that it consents to the new application.
The Commission seeks comment on this approach. In particular, the
Commission seeks any updates to the record regarding specific benefits
or harms arising from adopting rules to require existing DBS service
providers to accommodate requests to provide DBS service at reduced
orbital spacings and may consider adopting such rules if the record
demonstrates that doing so would serve the public interest.
DBS Licensing ``Freeze''. The Commission imposed a ``freeze'' on
requests for new DBS systems in 2005. The proposals the Commission
makes in this Second Notice will, if adopted, resolve the issues that
caused the Commission to impose that freeze. The Commission therefore
proposes to lift the freeze and begin accepting new applications for
DBS licenses after the effective date of rules adopted as a result of
this Second Notice. The Commission also proposes that new applications
or requests for U.S. market access be accepted only after a date
specified in a public notice, which the International Bureau would
release after the rules have become effective. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals.
Other Matters. The 2006 Notice also sought comment on other issues
related to the regulation of DBS service that the Commission do not
repeat in this Second Notice. These other issues relate to protection
requirements among terrestrial Multichannel Video Distribution and Data
Service (MVDDS) licensees and DBS operations at reduced spacings,
protection of DBS operations at reduced spacings from interference from
NGSO FSS operations, protection
[[Page 2130]]
of mobile DBS receivers smaller than 45 cm in diameter, and whether to
establish a spectrum cap on existing DBS licensees. The Commission
seeks additional comment on these issues in light of developments since
the 2006 Notice and our tentative conclusions in this Second Notice.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission
has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in this Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
We request written public comments on this IRFA. Commenters must
identify their comments as responses to the IRFA and must file the
comments by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided above in
section IV.B. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. In addition, summaries of the NPRM and IRFA will be
published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
The NPRM seeks comment on several proposals relating to the
Commission's rules and policies for licensing space stations in the
Digital Broadcasting Satellite (DBS) Service. Adoption of the proposed
changes would, among other things, provide a licensing system under
which new licenses for DBS satellites in reduced spacing orbital slots
would be processed according to the Commission's rules for
geostationary orbit space stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service.
B. Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 303, and 316
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303,
316.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules May Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
affected by adoption of proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). Below, we describe and estimate the number of
small entity licensees that may be affected by adoption of the proposed
rules.
Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications. The
rules proposed in this NPRM would affect some providers of satellite
telecommunications services, if adopted. Satellite telecommunications
service providers include satellite and earth station operators. Since
2007, the SBA has recognized two census categories for satellite
telecommunications firms: ``Satellite Telecommunications'' and ``Other
Telecommunications.'' Under both categories, a business is considered
small if it had $32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
The first category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point
telecommunications services to other establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 satellite
communications firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
482 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.
The second category of Other Telecommunications is comprised of
entities ``primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category,
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,346 firms had
annual receipts of under $25 million. We anticipate that some of these
``Other Telecommunications firms,'' which are small entities, are earth
station applicants/licensees that might be affected if our proposed
rule changes are adopted.
We anticipate that our proposed rule changes may have an impact on
earth station and space station applicants and licensees. Space station
applicants and licensees, however, rarely qualify under the definition
of a small entity. Generally, space stations cost hundreds of millions
of dollars to construct, launch, and operate. Consequently, we do not
anticipate that any space station operators are small entities that
would be affected by our proposed actions.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on several rule changes that
would affect compliance requirements for earth station and space
station operators. Most proposed changes, however, are directed at
space station applicants and licensees. As noted above, these parties
rarely qualify as small entities.
For example, the Commission proposes to allow additional uses of
certain frequencies within the 17.2-17.7 GHz band, subject to
compliance with technical limits designed to protect other users of the
bands. We also seek comment on revised or new technical standards to
promote sharing among DBS systems in reduced orbital spacings.
We also propose modified rules for satellite system implementation
to provide additional flexibility to operators. In total, the proposals
and questions in the NPRM are designed to achieve the Commission's
mandate to regulate in the public interest while imposing the lowest
necessary burden on all affected parties, including small entities.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
[[Page 2131]]
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. The Commission
is aware that some of the proposals under consideration may impact
small entities. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the
Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the
proposals outlined in the NPRM.
The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM, in
reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.
In this NPRM, the Commission invites comment on means to minimize
negative economic impacts on applicants and licensees, including small
entities, by permitting DBS space stations in orbital locations between
the currently authorized orbital locations. Overall, the proposals in
the NPRM seek to increase flexibility for DBS applicants and licensees
and reduce burdens, while maintaining adequate protections against
interference.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25
Administrative practice and procedure, Earth stations, Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part
25, as follows:
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319,
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 25.110 by revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text
and paragraph (b)(3)(iii) and adding paragraph (b)(3)(iv) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.110 Filing of applications, fees, and number of copies.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) A license application for 17/24 GHz BSS space station
operation, for GSO FSS space station operation, or for GSO space
station operation subject to the provisions in Appendices 30 and 30A of
the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 25.108)
may be submitted in two steps, as follows:
* * * * *
(iii) An application for GSO space station operation subject to the
provisions in Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 25.108) may be initiated by
submitting to the Commission, in accordance with the applicable
provisions of part 1, subpart Y of this chapter, a draft ITU filing to:
Modify an existing frequency assignment in the Region 2 Plan; to
include a new frequency assignment in the Region 2 Plan; or to include
a new or modified frequency assignment in the List of the Regions 1 and
3 Plan, accompanied by a simplified Form 312 and a declaration of
acceptance of ITU cost-recovery responsibility in accordance with Sec.
25.111(d). The simplified Form 312, Main Form submission must include
the information required by items 1-17, 43, 45, and 46. In addition,
the applicant must submit the results of an analysis demonstrating that
no U.S. filing under Appendix 30 and 30A would be deemed affected by
the proposed operation under the relevant ITU criteria or, for any
affected filings, a letter signed by the affected operator that it
consents to the new filing.
(iv) An application initiated pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3)(i),
(b)(3)(ii) or (b)(3)(iii) of this section will be considered completed
by the filing of an FCC Form 312 and the remaining information required
in a complete license application, including the information required
by Sec. 25.114, within two years of the date of submission of the
initial application materials.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 25.114 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.114 Applications for space station authorizations.
(a) * * *
(3) For an application filed pursuant to the two-step procedure in
Sec. 25.110(b)(3), the filing pursuant to Sec. 25.110(b)(3)(iv) must
be submitted on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule S, with attached
exhibits as required by paragraph (d) of this section, and must
constitute a comprehensive proposal.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 25.121 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.121 License term and renewals.
(a) * * * (1) Except for licenses for SDARS space stations and
terrestrial repeaters and 17/24 GHz BSS space stations licensed as
broadcast facilities, licenses for facilities governed by this part
will be issued for a period of 15 years.
* * * * *
Sec. 25.140 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 25.140 by revising the section header and adding new
paragraph (a)(3)(vii) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.140 Further requirements for license applications for GSO
space station operation in the FSS and the 17/24 GHz BSS.
(a)(1) * * *
(vi) In addition to the information required by Sec. 25.114, an
applicant for a GSO space station operating in the frequencies of the
ITU Appendices 30 and 30A (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 25.108)
must provide a statement that the proposed operation will take into
account the applicable requirements of these Appendices of the ITU
Radio Regulations and a demonstration that it is compatible with other
U.S. ITU filings under Appendices 30 and 30A or, for any affected
filings, a letter signed by the affected operator indicating that it
consents to the new application.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 25.148 by removing and reserving paragraphs (b), (d) and
(e).
0
7. Amend Sec. 25.164 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.164 Milestones.
(a) The recipient of an initial license for a GSO space station,
other than a SDARS space station, granted on or after August 27, 2003,
must launch the space station, position it in its assigned orbital
location, and operate it in accordance with the station authorization
no later than five years after the grant of the license, unless a
different schedule is established by Title 47, Chapter I, or the
Commission.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 25.165 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 25.165 Surety bonds.
(a) For all space station licenses issued after September 20, 2004,
other than licenses for SDARS space stations and replacement space
stations as defined in paragraph (e) of this section, the licensee must
post a bond within 30 days of the grant of its license. Failure to post
a bond will render the license null and void automatically.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-01314 Filed 2-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P